“IDR”
“Page 1 of 18”

“IDR”
B1.1. Scientific/ Technological Quality, including any interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of the proposal
The proposed study of the methodology of internal dispute resolution (IDR) is part of a broader effort to develop the theoretical understanding and applicability of the interdisciplinary field of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). At the heart of this project lies the complex relationship between ADR and formal law. In recent decades we have witnessed a shift in legal theory of dispute resolution from a legal-centric approach to a more multidisciplinary one, emphasizing the role private arenas play in the evolution, resolution and prevention of disputes (Galanter, 1983; Felstiner et al., 1981, Nader,
1980). This literature, among other things, highlighted the truism that very few disputes are resolved by the formal American legal system; most disputes never reach the courts and an even smaller portion terminates in a court decision (Galanter, 1983). This reality presents a challenge to the legal system. Mnookin's classic formulation that ADR mechanisms operate “in the shadow of the law” (Mnookin, 1979) barely describes a reality in which these bodies make, and not only rely on, law. This realization has spun a vigorous debate over the role private bodies should play in the generation and enforcement of norms, some rejecting the use of ADR unreservedly (Fiss, 1984), while others highlight the practical need for, and the many advantages of, such mechanisms
(Menkel Meadow, 1996), and others still view ADR as normatively superior to the formal system (Bush & Folger, 1994).
IDR provides an excellent demonstration of the limited nature of the current academic debate. In many respects, IDR is an arena in which ADR’s many benefits are maximized, allowing for early detection of individual problems and problematic patterns (Dubler &
Liebman, 2004). This information can be invaluable to an entity that strives to improve, not only the interpersonal relations among employees and management, but also its products and services. From the employees’ perspective, IDR is often essential for them to voice their complaints, particularly when related to sensitive matters like sexual harassment (Rowe, 1990). Since IDR is offered in the context of an ongoing relationship, there is often room for creative, extra-legal solutions. At the same time, it is the very qualities that make IDR appealing (the insider perspective and the confidential and flexible nature of ADR) that are also the source for discontent. Some researchers have warned that IDR can be a dangerous tool for "de-politicizing" and pacifying complaints, thereby strengthening management at the expense of employees, typically women and minorities (Edelman et al., 1993). This research project seeks to mitigate the dichotomous debate on ADR, by offering a paradigm for the fair and effective operation of IDR mechanisms. In doing so, I join a small group of researchers from various disciplines who have demonstrated ways in which private bodies can be motivated to operate in publicly accountable ways. Drawing on insights from the fields of sociology, anthropology, organizational theory, psychology and economics, this study will develop a theoretical framework through an examination of incipient IDR systems in Israel and an investigation of relevant statutes and literature (legal and other), thereby filling in a much needed gap in ADR literature. I envisage this development to create a significant opportunity for Europe to stay ahead of developments and to conceptualize these occurrences before entrenched patterns are established.
“Page 2 of 18”

“IDR”
B1.2. Research Methodology
This research project centers on the study of IDR, through extensive research of local and comparative regulation and legal scholarship as well as an analysis of selected case studies of incipient Israeli experiments with IDR.
The project will be conducted in several parts, which will take place on two interconnected levels: the theoretical and the practical. On one level, I will develop a theoretical model that seeks to address the tension inherent in delivering independent dispute resolution services under the auspices of a private, often for-profit, organization.
On another level, I will examine the theoretical model’s applicability in particular contexts, thereby allowing the data and functioning of the model to funnel back into the original theoretical model, to develop a richer, refined model. This approach is guided by the methodology of grounded theory research, which has its sources in American pragmatism (Ansel, & Corbin, 1998). This line of research addresses the oft-cited lacunae in the study of ADR– the dearth of theory, the disconnect between the theory and practice of ADR and the persistent call for more empirical data. This methodological approach also provides an excellent, if not superior, lens through which to study subtle questions relating to the fairness and accountability of dispute resolution mechanisms.
The first phase of this project will focus on the role of IDR mechanisms in addressing employment discrimination disputes. The research will draw on the extensive American experience in this area, which has both demonstrated the problematic aspects of using
IDR for the resolution of this type of disputes (Edelman et al., 1993) and the enormous potential internal mechanisms have for surfacing these phenomena and addressing them in a more meaningful manner than formal dispute resolution channels (Rowe, 1990;
Gadlin, 1991; Sturm, 1998). The American experience will serve as a backdrop to the analysis of the role such mechanisms can and should play in the Israeli arena.
Specifically, I will analyze the recently enacted Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission Law, which envisions the use of mediation in the resolution of discrimination-related employment disputes but fails to incorporate an IDR regime, as well as other relevant legislation, including the Israeli sexual harassment law enacted several years ago. The project will critically assess the legal arrangement in Israel and offer an alternative. Building on the American experience and my own empirical and theoretical experience in the field, the project will develop a framework for introducing
IDR into the current landscape for the resolution of employment discrimination disputes while ensuring the fairness and accountability of these private mechanisms and the wellbeing of individual employees.
The second phase of this project involves the qualitative empirical study of several incipient IDR systems that are being introduced into large organizations in Israel. The research is expected to produce a new paradigm for the design of IDR mechanisms. The majority of current writing on IDR focuses on the advantages to the organization (in terms of cost, reputation, productivity and learning) and the complainant (in terms of confidentiality, cost and control over, and satisfaction with, the process and outcome) but addresses the tension between resolving disputes in-house and ensuring that they be
“Page 3 of 18”

“IDR” handled fairly only in broad terms, typically calling for an increased role for stakeholders in the design and evaluation of IDR mechanisms (Constantino & Merchant, 1996; Lipsky et al., 2003). Employee involvement is certainly an important step in establishing accountable IDR mechanisms, but the mere adoption of piecemeal measures is insufficient. What is needed is a theoretical framework for the design and evaluation of
IDR systems. Through the case studies, I will gain first hand access to the design and implementation of internal dispute resolution units in several organizations. This will allow for a critical examination of both theory and practice of IDR. This portion of the research is expected to be the most time consuming since it requires observation of the various units, interviewing unit members, observations of dispute resolution efforts, and analysis of research materials and integration of empirical findings into the theoretical framework. Thus far, I have secured access to one case study, a pioneering experiment with IDR at a large Israeli hospital, and am in the process of finalizing an additional case study with one of the leading Israeli financial institutions.
In the final and last phase, I plan to draw broader lessons from the American and Israeli experience with IDR whereby the main thrust of my efforts will be to develop a framework for the design and evaluation of fair and effective IDR services that will prove applicable to Europe. The writing phase will be preceded by several trips to Europe where I will gain firsthand broad knowledge of the state of ADR and IDR there. The need for an overarching framework becomes ever more pressing in the European context given the diverse selection of local regulation on ADR and the lack of conformity in the EU on such issues as standards, training or confidentiality.
B1.3. Originality and Innovative Nature of the Project and Relationship to the State of the
Art in the Research Field
This proposal is innovative and original first because it fills in a void in the ADR literature, and second because it is inspired by novel concepts and methodologies in other fields, as described below. The void in ADR research is addressed by focusing on a fastgrowing and little studied phenomenon, IDR. ADR in general is considered both undertheorized (in that there is insufficient academic study of the field, most notably in the legal arena with the exception being the field of negotiation theory) and over-theoretical
(in that there are not enough empirical studies of ADR systems to inform what theory of
ADR there is).
Within this general shortage of research, the field of IDR is particularly scant. Most of the writing on IDR is produced by or for the ombudsman community or by organizational theorists. Both bodies of work fail, for the most part, to address the impact of mass internalization of dispute handling in such sensitive areas as employment discrimination on the generation and enforcement of public norms.
Nevertheless, there have been several exceptions. Edelman, Erlanger and Lande voiced a fierce attack on IDR, exposing what they term as “managerialism” in the handling of complaints within organizations, i.e.
the propensity of IDR units to transform gender or
“Page 4 of 18”

“IDR” racial discrimination into “personal misunderstandings” or “cultural differences”
(Edelman et al., 1993). Thus, according to that account, IDR not only eliminates these disputes from the public realm, but also precludes the enforcement and permeation of discrimination law in private arenas. Although their criticism is important and, in many cases, accurate, I nevertheless believe that it is incomplete; they fail to grasp the role IDR can and does play in improving the work experience of individual employees and enhancing novel approaches to norm enforcement. We are operating in a fast-changing, complex environment and the problems that arise under such conditions cannot be fully understood and addressed by the formal legal system. Sturm gives an account of an IDR system, operating in a commercial setting that can, and to a certain extent does, function differently from Edelman's description (Sturm, 1998).
This is not a one of a kind phenomenon, but ties into broader changes that have led to increased private norm development enforcement in both local and global settings. A small group of American academics are now engaged in studying a variety of areas in which norms are generated in a bottom up fashion overcoming a regulatory vacuum.
These developments are now being documented and theorized in a variety of contexts, such as international labor rights, environmental law, employment discrimination and education (Fung, 2003; Sabel et al., 2000; Dorf & Sabel, 1998; Sturm, 1998), but have not yet been examined from the prism of ADR. My study will apply and develop insights gained in these efforts, ultimately to explore how they pertain to the European landscape.
I am currently engaged in an ongoing research project with Sturm, where we examine the
National Institute of Health’s IDR unit and its role as norm elaborator and enforcer. That work will tie into and complete the picture drawn by Sturm in her previous article.
However, in this proposed project, I seek a more comprehensive framework that links the effectiveness and fairness of IDR systems to the particular form of ADR chosen, i.e. mediation (with its various schools of practice), arbitration, counseling, etc. I will draw on the U.S. Postal Service’s impressive IDR system and on the Israeli case studies to establish a link between the adoption of a particular model of dispute resolution and the fairness and effectiveness of the IDR unit. My tentative claim is that use of one type of process, transformative mediation, is most effective in creating the climate and conditions for a fair IDR system. Although some writing on IDR has advocated mediation over other processes, there has been no attempt in the literature to bring together these various bodies of research – the literature on IDR, on norm elaboration in private settings and on the various types of ADR processes – to develop a comprehensive theory of the link between procedural choice, when disputes are resolved in a private setting, and the possibility for accountability to public values. This would be a natural development from my most recent piece, which advocated a paradigm shift for the development of accountability in mediation (Rabinovich-Einy, forthcoming - 2006).
B1.4. Timeliness and Relevance of the Project
This research is at the crossroads of several current developments. In recent years, the practice of ADR has burgeoned, allowing for the private resolution of such grievances as
“Page 5 of 18”

“IDR” court referred cases, business disagreements, community disputes and consumer complaints. The growth of ADR in the U.S. has been accompanied by fierce critiques of these mechanisms, mostly by sociologists of law, questioning the fairness of private dispute resolution processes and particularly their impact on disputants belonging to traditionally weak groups (Nader, 1980; Abel, 1982; Delgado, 1985; Grillo, 1991). With over 90% of disputes being resolved in private arenas outside the court system, the question of accountability of ADR providers and practitioners has become not only timely, but urgent. IDR, as mentioned above, has been the target of particularly fierce criticism, because of the increased potential for distorted incentives and bias by the dispute resolvers who are employed by the very organization whose disputes they are asked to address in a neutral manner. Despite these critiques, use of ADR has grown while ADR research has, for the most part, failed to satisfactorily address the concerns raised by these critics.
The American experience with IDR demonstrates that there is reason for concern, but at the same time offers examples of innovative attempts to overcome the tensions inherent in IDR – administering ADR services in-house while maintaining neutrality and offering private dispute resolution while preserving, perhaps even strengthening, public values and norms. The emergence of new information technologies has allowed for facile, inexpensive information collection, analysis and sharing, which can feed into novel efforts to enhance the accountability of IDR units. Aside from sporadic experiments, most IDR units have not taken advantage of these tools nor attempted to seriously address the concerns over IDR, most likely due to employee ignorance of the problematic associated with IDR and a similar lack of awareness by regulatory authorities, the press and the general public.
It is only a matter of time before IDR systems will become commonplace in Europe in light if the growth of ADR in general and the increased presence of, and affiliation with, large international organizations in particular. Europe has a significant opportunity to stay ahead of developments and to study and conceptualize these occurrences before entrenched patterns are established.
B1.5. Research Proposal Bibliography
Abel, Richard (1982) The Politics of Informal Justice . New York: Academic Press.
Bush, Robert A. and Joseph P. Folger (1994) The Promise of Mediation . San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Constantino, Cathy A. and Christina S. Merchant (1996) Designing Conflict Management
Systems.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Delgado, Richard, C. Dunn, and D. Hubbert (1985) “Fairness and Formality: Minimizing the Risk of Prejudice in Alternative Dispute Resolution,” Wis. L. Rev. 1359.
“Page 6 of 18”

“IDR”
Dorf, Michael C. and Charles F. Sabel (1998) “A Constitution of Democratic
Experimentalism,” 98
Colum. L. Rev.
267.
Dubler, Nancy N. and Carol B. Liebman (2004) Bioethics Mediation: A Guide to Shaping
Shared Solutions.
New York: United Hospital Fund.
Fiss, Owen M. (1984) “Against Settlement,” 93
Yale L.J. 1073.
Fung, Archon (2003) “Countervailing Power in Empowered Participatory Governance,” in Deepening Democracy.
Ed. Archon Fung & Eric Olin Wright. New York: Verso.
Edelman, Lauren B., Howard Erlanger & J. Lande (1993) “Internal Dispute Resolution:
The Transformation of Civil Rights in the Workplace,” 27 L. & Soc’y Rev. 497.
Felstiner, William F., Richard L. Abel, and Austin Sarat (1981) “The Emergence and
Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming and Claiming,” 15
L. & Soc. Rev.
631.
Gadlin, Howard (1991) “Careful Maneuvers: Mediating Sexual Harassment,” 7
Neg. J .
139.
Galanter, Marc (1983) “Reading The Landscape Of Disputes: What We Know And Don't
Know (And Think We Know) About Our Allegedly Contentious And Litigious Society,”
31 UCLA L. Rev. 4.
Grillo, Trina (1991) “The Mediation Alternative: Process Dangers for Women,” 100
Yale
L.J
. 1545.
Lipsky, David B., Ronald L. Seeber and Richard D. Fincher (2003) Emerging Systems for
Managing Workplace Conflict: Lessons from American Corporations for Managers and
Dispute Resolution Professionals . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie (1996) “The Trouble with the Adversary System in a
Postmodern, Multicultural World,” 38
Wm. & Mary L. Rev . 5.
Mnookin, Robert & Lewis Kornhauser (1979) “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law:
The Case of Divorce,” 88 Yale L.J.
950.
Nader, Laura (ed.) (1980) No Access To Law: Alternative to The American Judicial
System . New York: Academic Press.
Rabinovich-Einy, Orna (2006) “Technology’s Impact: The Quest for a New Paradigm for
Accountability in Mediation,”
Harv. Neg. L. Rev.
(forthcoming).
Rowe, Mary P. (1990) “People Who Feel Harassed Need a Complaint System with Both
Formal and Informal Options,” 6
Neg. J.
161, 166.
“Page 7 of 18”

“IDR”
Sabel, Charles F., Dara O'Rourke & Archon Fung, “Ratcheting Labor Standards:
Regulation for Continuous Improvement in the Global Workplace” (Working Paper, May
2, 2000).
Strauss Anselm and Juliet Corbin (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2 nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sturm, Susan P. (1998) “Second Generation Discrimination: A Structural Approach,” 101
Colum. L. Rev.
458.
B2 Quality of the Host
B2.1. Scientific Expertise of the Host
The faculty of law at Haifa University would be an excellent host for this project. The faculty has made the development of the field of ADR a top priority. Faculty member,
Professor Moti Mironi, is a pioneer in the field and one of the leading ADR scholars in
Israel. The Haifa Center of Law & Technology, of which I recently became a colleague, as well as the Haifa University Department of Management Information Systems, will provide important support since the model I am advancing draws on technological innovations. In addition, the law faculty together with the faculty of welfare and health are in the process of launching a joint Masters Program and research center in dispute resolution in which I will take part. The program and center, through their faculty and research students will undoubtedly be a fertile ground for exchanging of ideas, locating talented research assistants and relevant literature, in addition to supplying administrative assistance. The input of faculty and students from the Faculty of Welfare and Health will be particularly helpful in my work on the case study of the hospital IDR unit.
Aside from the focus on ADR, the faculty is particularly suitable for this project because of its distinctively interdisciplinary nature. The law faculty currently offers ten joint programs in law and other fields, such as economics, psychology, medicine, nursing and social work as well as several masters programs, including a unique masters program for practicing Israeli judges and a masters program for visiting European students participating in the Erasmus Masters in Law and Economics.
This interdisciplinary environment is echoed in the larger community within the organization where collaboration across departments and disciplines is common. There are several researchers in the Faculty of Welfare and Health, Business school, Sociology and Anthropology Department and Communications Department who work on close topics and can contribute to the content and methodology of the project.
B2.2. Quality of Infrastructures
The University of Haifa's character as a research university is manifested in the friendly research environment available to the faculty – an excellent library, extensive electronic
“Page 8 of 18”

“IDR” resources, a good selection of research assistance, a number of relevant research centers and institutes and a tradition of faculty colloquia in which new projects are presented and critiqued. There is a particular emphasis on support for young faculty with a view to helping them getting launched in their career as professors and researchers.
An excessive network of institutionalized relationships with universities around the world, particularly in Europe, facilitates collaborative research and provides excellent tools for obtaining data from other countries necessary for comparative studies. It should be noted that no external facilities are needed for the execution of the project.
B3 Quality of the Researcher
Relevant Research Experience
The proposed research project brings together my unusual research experience on the
IDR unit of the National Institute of Health (NIH), other academic research and interest areas I have pursued over the years, the insights I have gained as a mediator and lawyer in the U.S. and Israel, and the strong contacts I have established with the local mediation community since returning to Israel, which have granted me access to incipient experiments with IDR in Israel.
Throughout my research, I have focused on questions relating to the fairness of ADR mechanisms. My practical experience as a mediator and lawyer, both in the U.S. and
Israel, has served to strengthen my belief in ADR processes as a better path for reaching a comprehensive, long-lasting resolution to disputes, but, at the same time, has also given me reason for concern over mediator conduct in a confidential setting with very little guidance and practically no external scrutiny. Therefore, during my LL.M. (Masters) program at Columbia University, I chose to write a research paper on the question of mediation of sexual harassment disputes. This was the first arena in which I researched the complex relationship between the potential of ADR, and mediation in particular, to provide a superior alternative to litigation in delicate contexts and the danger of ADR when conducted between parties of unequal power (such as harassment victims, primarily women). This paper awarded me a prestigious award and was a natural first step in my doctoral research and towards my work at the NIH.
During the last year and a half of my stay in the U.S., I participated in a joint research project with Professor Susan Sturm of Columbia University, studying the role of the IDR unit at the NIH. This unit, which consists of six individuals who are in charge of complaints in an organization consisting of approximately 18,000 employees, has adopted a set of unique tools in an effort to extend beyond the role of mere dispute settlers. The unit has managed, through its interventions in ongoing conflicts, to shape its role proactively, transforming its members from mere mediators and coaches to strategic actors who are in a position to detect problematic organizational patterns and support the organization in norm elaboration and enforcement. The NIH dispute resolution group is considered a leader and innovator among other IDR units and ombudsmen and indeed the access we gained to their activities, typically conducted in private and rarely documented
“Page 9 of 18”

“IDR” in the literature, has proven invaluable. During those 18 months or so, I listened (over the phone) to the group's weekly session, met (together with Professor Sturm) with the group for a full day on a bi-monthly basis and conducted extensive interviews with the group members. Once we finish coding and analyzing the data collected, we expect this research to yield two publications. One will be on the connection between the resolution of individual conflicts and the ability to address systemic problems that extend beyond the individual dispute but are revealed through patterns in the work of internal dispute resolution units. The second article will deal with the potential conflict of interests experienced by an internal dispute resolution group and how that tension affects its handling of race and gender complaints. The NIH research project has undoubtedly been an essential preparation for conducting a qualitative study of the Israeli IDR mechanisms described in this proposal.
In my article that is forthcoming at the Harvard Negotiation Law Review (Rabinovich-
Einy, forthcoming - 2006), I laid out some of the theoretical groundwork that is necessary for the work on the current proposal in the more general context of ADR. In that piece, I developed a new paradigm for engendering accountability in private dispute resolution, which can be applied to, and further developed in the context of, IDR systems. The significance of that article lies in two main areas. First, the work exposes the source of the problematic of private dispute resolution in what I term "the accountability dilemma."
I describe the seemingly inherent tension between what are the basic tenets of accountability, structure and transparency, and the two most essential qualities of ADR processes (in particular mediation), flexibility and confidentiality. Although confidentiality and, to a lesser extent, flexibility, have been the target of critiques of
ADR, to my knowledge, no one has previously established the problem in these terms.
The second and more dramatic contribution is in the article's attempt to question the validity of the accountability dilemma by challenging current conceptions of confidentiality and flexibility within the ADR community and by offering alternative understandings that yield more information on mediation proceedings and mediator practices, allow for monitoring, evaluation and improvement. The new paradigm I offer is drawn from a case study of SquareTrade, a company that resolves conflicts that arise between eBay users through the Internet. The SquareTrade experience, although very different from the practice of traditional, face-to-face ADR, offers unique insights as to the role new information technologies can play in strengthening bottom up efforts to enhance accountability in private arenas.
Since my return to Israel, I have been in close contact with researchers, policy makers and mediators over the state of ADR in Israel and have managed to gain access to one, and potentially one or two other, early experiments with IDR in Israel. This proposal would thus bring together the experience I have gained over the last few years and progress my research allowing me not only to develop a theoretical model, but also to contribute to the practice of ADR and policymaking in the field.
“Page 10 of 18”

“IDR”
Academic CV
C
URRENT
P
OSITION

University of Haifa Faculty of Law (Oct. 2005 – Present)
Assistant Professor (proposed rank, tenure track) (civil procedure, alternative dispute resolution)
P REVIOUS T EACHING & R ESEARCH E XPERIENCE

Faculty of Law, College of Management, Rishon Le Tzion, Israel (Summer of
2005)
Summer course on the practice and theory of mediation, co-taught with Ms. Amira
Dotan and Ms. Hanna Kotzer Sapir

Professor Susan Sturm, Columbia Law School (November 2003 to present)
Joint research project, Professor Susan Sturm

Professor Carol Liebman, Columbia Law School (September 2003 to
December 2003)
Teaching Assistant, Mediation Clinic

Professor Liora Bilsky Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law (January 1996 to
July 1996)
Research Assistant, prepared background materials for two courses

Professor Pnina Lahav, The Interdisciplinary Center, Hertzeliya (Visiting
Professor, Boston University School of Law) (October 1996 to February
1997)
Teaching Assistant, Comparative Constitutional Law
E DUCATION

Columbia University, Law School, dispute resolution and technology,
September 2000 to May 2005, J.S.D., awarded October 2005.
Doctoral Dissertation: From Settlement to Justice: Dispute Resolution in the Internet
Age , English, 249pp, May 2005.

Columbia University, Law School, general legal studies, August 1999 to May
2000, LL.M., awarded May 2000.

Tel Aviv University, Law Faculty, general legal studies, October 1993 to March
1997, LL.B., awarded June 1998, magna cum laude .

Tel Aviv University, The Faculty of the Humanities, completion of General and
Interdisciplinary Studies, October 1992 to March 1997, awarded May 1998, magna cum laude .
A CADEMIC P UBLICATIONS

Going Public: Diminishing Privacy in Dispute Resolution, 7 Virginia Journal of Law & Technology 1-55 (2002)
“Page 11 of 18”

“IDR”

Balancing the Scales: The Ford-Firestone Case, The Internet, and the Future
Dispute Resolution Landscape, Yale Journal of Law & Technology 1-53
(2003-04)
 Technology’s Impact: The Quest for a New Paradigm for Accountability in
Mediation, Harvard Negotiation Law Review (accepted, approx. 50 pp)
W ORK IN P ROGRESS
 Study of National Institute of Health’s IDR System (joint research with
Professor Susan Sturm, Columbia University School of Law)

Judicial Accountability in an Age of Discretion: An Israeli Case Study

Access to Where? On the Status of Mandatory Arbitration Clauses in Standard
Contracts

Bottom Up Norm Elaboration and Enforcement: The Case of MAALA and
Corporate Ethical Compliance (joint research with Ms. Faina Milman, Ramat
Gan Law School)
A CADEMIC C ONFERENCES AND O THER P RESENTATIONS

The Ford-Firestone Debacle, Conference on Online Dispute Resolution,
Edinburgh (June 2003)

Round Table on Community Dispute Resolution, The Israeli Academic
Research Institute of Conflict Resolution and Mediation (May 3, 2005)

Round Table on Mediation of Sexual Harassment Disputes, The Israeli
Academic Research Institute of Conflict Resolution and Mediation (June 9,
2005)

Round Table on Mediation Practice and Academia, The Israeli Academic
Research Institute of Conflict Resolution and Mediation (January 8, 2006)
 The Sources of the Israeli “Mediation Revolution” – A Critical Perspective,”
Invited Talk, Ceremony for Dean’s List Students, Haifa University Faculty of
Law (January 25, 2006)

Lessons of ODR: Rethinking Traditional Approaches, Conference on Online
Dispute Resolution, Cairo (March 22, 2006)

The Role of ODR in e-Commerce, Conference on the Proposed Israeli e-
Commerce Legislation, Haifa University Faculty of Law (March 29, 2006)
L
ICENSURE AND
C
ERTIFICATION

Israel Bar Association, 1998 (inactive)

New York State Bar Association, 2001

Safe Horizon Mediation Services Certified Mediator (basic training – May
2003, mentorship – August 2003, certification – December 2004).
O THER A CADEMIC O FFICES
“Page 12 of 18”

“IDR”

Supervision over Graduate Theses
LL.M. Thesis, Haifa University Faculty of Law (Right to Counsel in Civil Litigation)

Refereeing for Graduate Theses/Papers
LL.M. Thesis, Haifa University Faculty of Law (Abuse of Process in Civil
Litigation); Final Research Papers, Haifa University Faculty of Law (Mediation of
Complaints Against Police Officers; The Right of Appeal in Arbitration)

Offices in University Administration
Member of the Faculty of Law's Positioning Committee; Coordinator for the Joint
Program in Law and Nursing; Coordinator for fourth year law students
S CHOLARSHIPS AND A WARDS

Fulbright grantee, September 1999 – May 2001 (U.S. $20,000)

Florence P. Shientag Award (for a paper on women’s issues), The New York
Women’s Bar Association Foundation, May 2001 (U.S. $5,000)
B4 Management and Feasibility
As a tenured track researcher and lecturer, the researcher will enjoy the academic, technical and administrative support necessary for the implementation and management of the fellowship. Given the researcher’s experience and qualifications, the faculty is confident that the researcher will successfully meet the relevant deadlines, complete the required deliverables and operate within the budgetary constraints. The actual administration of the fellowship will be performed by the Haifa University Research
Authority, which is experienced in handling Marie Curie grants as well as other international and national grants, and will serve as an internal monitoring mechanism for ensuring that the researcher indeed meets the milestones envisioned in the work plan and remains within the confines of the budget specified below.
Work plan:
The three components of the research project described in the methodology section above, i.e. a comparative research on the role of IDR in the employment discrimination context in the U.S. and Israel, an analysis of Israeli IDR incipient case studies, and the development of an overarching framework applicable to the European context, will be developed and finalized according to the following schedule:
Time Frame
6 months
Milestones
Stage I - analysis of U.S. IDR in the context of employment discrimination and relevant
Israeli law on these matters focusing on the impact of the formal legal system on the scope and outcome of such litigation
Deliverables
Initial draft of article on the integration of IDR into
Israeli employment discrimination context
Comments
“Page 13 of 18”

“IDR”
End year I
18 months
End year II
End Year III
Finalize draft for Stage I;
II - Set up framework for
Stage conducting qualitative study of these systems, begin research
Initial empirical research material collected through interviews, work with IDR group and observations
Finalize research for Stage II, review and code data, synthesize and analyze findings to produce a grounded theoretical framework
- Final version of article produced in Stage I
- Detailed design for the study of the case studies
- List of materials collected
- Initial transcripts / notes of interviews conducted
- list of materials that still need to be collected
- list of research materials collected
- coding table
- draft outline of Stage II journal article
Finalize Stage II – article completed; Stage III – based on the case studies, producing a general framework for IDR that offers broad lessons that extend beyond the Israeli context to
Europe and may be applicable to other forms of ADR
- Final version of Stage II journal article
- Final version of Stage III journal article
Budget:
Personnel cost (research assistants in the various fields implicated in the project, including conducting interviews, transcription of interviews and processing of data, technical support)
Durable equipment
(computer, printer/fax/scanner, peripherals, digital tape recorder, software, books)
Consumables
(printing paper, ink, office equipment)
Travel
(travel inside Israel to research sites, several trips to Europe and one trip to the U.S.
1 for research purposes on state of ADR and
IDR)
Overheads (10%) (non-eligible)
Year I Year
II
16.000
Euro
18.000
Euro
7.000
Euro
1.000
Euro
10.000
Euro
4.100
Euro
3.000
Euro
1.000
Euro
14.000
Euro
4.500
Euro
Year
III
5.000
Euro
300
Euro
700
Euro
5000
Euro
1.550
Euro
Total
39.000
Euro
Total Eligible
34.000 Euro
10.300
Euro
2.700
Euro
29.000
Euro
Stage I article to be submitted to law journals
2-3 trips to Europe during this year to establish contacts and research ADR and IDR efforts in
Europe
10.150
Euro
10.000 Euro
2.000 Euro
24.000 Euro
0 Euro
1 As part of the research, most of my international travel will be to Europe, but one trip to the U.S. is required in order to compare the novel experiments in Israel with the several decades of experience with
IDR in the U.S. In particular, I would like to gain access to the IDR system at the U.S. Postal Services, handling complaints of several hundreds of thousands of workers.
“Page 14 of 18”

“IDR”
Patent costs
Management activities, including audit certificate (max 3% of the Community contribution)
Others (annual conference/workshop, 2 access to databases, costs associated with publication of 3 articles)
Total Cost (max 80.000 Euro eligible)
1.000
Euro
6.000
Euro
41.000
Euro
1.000
Euro
6.000
Euro
43.000
Euro
1.000
Euro
4.500
Euro
16.500
Euro
---
3.000
Euro
16.500
Euro
100.500
Euro
N/A
2.000 Euro
12.000 Euro
84.000 Euro
Requested EC contribution (in Euro) 40.000 40.000 80.000 Euro
B5 Added Value and Relevance to the Objectives of the Specific Programme
At the most immediate level, supporting this proposal advances the purposes of the specific programme in assisting a researcher reintegrate in a European-related country, in a tenure track position at a leading university. Supporting this project would not only help the particular researcher reintegrate and establish herself, but would also create a whole new field of endeavor that extends beyond the university to the public sector and private enterprises, expanding the scope of legal research.
ADR research has, thus far, been predominantly American. Through this project I intend to develop strong ties to the European ADR community, which includes academics, policymakers and practitioners in Member and Associated States, so as to allow for the proliferation of local research that is tied to the needs and developments in these areas.
These developments will situate the soon to be established Haifa Research Center for
Dispute Resolution at the forefront of ADR research, seeking to attract students and researchers from all over Europe who have tended to turn to the U.S. in this area. In addition, such cooperation would tie in well with the close relations already existing between the Haifa law faculty and European programs, such as the Erasmus Masters in
Law and Economics program and with individual law faculties and researchers across
Europe, allowing for additional forms of collaboration in teaching and research among academics, students and practitioners. At the same time, my close relationship with ADR researchers and practitioners in the U.S., where this field (in its modern form) originated and evolved, will serve as an ongoing channel for exchange of knowledge and mutual learning. The development of a European network for academic research that is tied to the practice of ADR through my own work and the operation of the Haifa Research
Center for Dispute Resolution will situate European scholars as leaders and innovators in a field that has been chiefly U.S.-based to date.
Moreover, the development of research in the field of ADR in general and IDR in particular directly enhances the EU’s declared positions supporting the use of mediation
2 A sum of 3.000 Euro in each of Year I and II will cover an annual international workshop/conference at
Haifa to which several European scholars will be invited in order to promote and advance the research and tighten the ties in this field across the EU.
“Page 15 of 18”

“IDR” and other ADR processes while ensuring their quality, as evidenced in such documents as the EU’s Code of Conduct for Mediators and the EU Directive on ADR, adopted on
October 25, 2004. The proposed project aims at identifying important policy considerations that need to be taken into account in programs that call for the privatization of dispute resolution services, in particular in the context of unequal power relations, such as the consumer and employment areas. The study, which seeks to uncover structures for the delivery of fair and accountable dispute resolution services, promotes one of the major issues located high on the EU agenda whose impact on the lives of all EU (and related states) residents will be pervasive since they are all consumers and many of them are employed by large organizations, all likely to adopt
IDR mechanisms in the course of the next decade.
B6 Previous Proposals and Contracts
None
B7 Other Issues


A. Proposers are requested to fill in the following table
Does the research presented in this proposal raise sensitive ethical questions related to:

Human beings

Human biological samplers

Personal data (whether identified by name or not)
Genetic information
Animals
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
The project involves research of the design and functioning of the dispute resolution team primarily through the collection of secondary information – individual interviews with the members of the dispute resolution team and joint sessions with the group. To the extent that observations of actual resolution attempts will be conducted, this will be conditioned on the express and written consent of the parties and any information recorded will be recorded in an anonymous fashion and will not be personally identifiable. Therefore, this type of research does not raise ethical issues concerning the personal data of those disputants who rely on the IDR services. In devising the particulars of the research and in developing the databases for maintaining the data collected, I will work closely with the Haifa Center for
Law and Technology to ensure compliance with local and relevant international regulations
“Page 16 of 18”

“IDR” and ordinances on personal privacy of the disputants, including Directive 95/46/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.
B. Proposers are requested to confirm that the research presented in this proposal does not involve:

Research activity aimed at human cloning for reproductive purposes,

Research activity intended to modify the genetic heritage of human beings, which could make such changes heritable,

Research activity intended to create human embryos solely for the purpose of research or for the purpose of stem cell procurement, including by means of somatic cell nuclear transfer,

Research involving the use of human embryos or embryonic stem cells with the exception of banked or isolated human embryonic stem cells in culture
I CONFIRM THAT THE RESEARCH PRESENTED IN THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT
INVOLVE ANY OF THE ABOVE ACTIVITIES.
C. Gender aspects of this research project
The research project is strongly connected to gender issues, in that it promotes the adoption of fair and accountable dispute resolution mechanisms within large organizations. In these settings, most of the disputes involve employees, of which a significant portion typically revolves around issues of discrimination in admission, promotion or work assignment, sexual harassment or accommodation. As explained above, ADR processes have the potential to serve as a facilitator for these women in that they encourage the surfacing of complaints by creating a confidential, informal complaint route in which the complainant can maintain control over her complaint. At the same time, however, the very qualities that make ADR attractive to disputants, their confidentiality and flexibility, can harm weaker parties when disputants' powers are imbalanced. In discrimination, harassment and accommodation disputes it is typically the woman who is at a disadvantage. This proposal, therefore, by promoting accountability in
IDR, has a direct and significant contribution in terms of promoting gender equality and enforcement of public norms that promote this end.
Furthermore, since I myself am a female researcher, by supporting this project, the programme will contribute to the goal of strengthening gender equality within academia, which has been a far from equal terrain for women. I hope inspire other women to engage in research activities and enter academic life and will promote this goal through mentorship.
“Page 17 of 18”

“IDR”
“Page 18 of 18”